Uh oh, guys--things are about to get some serious dramatic tension. The bad guy's about to use the "real nasty ammo" on our heroine! And he's making the bomb go off somewhere on the station!

...a bomb he could have used as a bargaining chip to keep Danica from unleashing on him since she cares about other people--could have pretty much told her that her death could prevent SO MANY OTHERS. That might have put Danica in a position to have to make a hard chioce or show the limits of her power.

I only hope he has multiple bombs and is now doing the smart thing and showing them that he means business and they have to give up Danica/help him kill her or every innocent life on the station will be snuffed out. After all, if this guy is supposed to have a reputation doesn't that mean he shouldn't make idiot mistakes like this and get terribly outnumbered to kill one girl?

Why wasn't he using the super-ammo from moment one?

I will say I kinda like the design of tan cyclops guy in panel 4. I wanna hear more about HIM.

She's an idiot (admittedly due to being naive) for shouting at the guy shooting into a crowd.

The police force are idiots for a: shooting at him with weapons that don't incapacitate, b, standing all in a big bunch, c: NOT SHOOTING HIM WHILE HE'S PRESSING A BUTTON RIGHT THERE AAAGH DOES NO-ONE HAVE ANY SORT OF REFLEXES IN THIS COMIC WHATSOEVER?

It's the future, where are the stunners? There are ROBOTS WITH VOICE COMMUNICATIONS. The guy could have rigged up a word to say to launch robot attack dogs on them! That explode! And idiotic things! And they just shoot his hand! Don't they have scanner things to see what weapons he has? Aren't they actually USING them?

tl;dr they're all idiots upon idiots

Why wasn't he using the super-ammo from moment one?

Because he was shooting other, non-superpowered people with that gun first. Instead of... using another gun.

Maldraugedhen wrote:That would only be if stupidity was a Boolean thing, or if it was like always multiplying a pair of negative numbers (assuming positive is intelligent).Stupidity has its own infinite continuum, from bordering on the brain dead to just shy of normal....I need to not delurk right after a long coding session.

I think with a little thought it's possible to at once explain at least PART of the bounty-hunter's decision not to unload his best on dangerous starchild girl as well as help an audience jaded by Mookie's previous endeavors to get a better idea of what "really nasty ammo" could entail besides having it spit racist and sexist comments.

Rather than just use the subjective and altogether underwhelming "really nasty" description, put it in weighty terms the audience can appreciate and suggest that it's something that's hard to get ahold of.

"I didn't want to have to resort to these rounds--rare, expensive and can punch through a small planet--but you're just THAT kind of target, girl."

Even if used as an exaggeration, describing what a round might actually be able to DO holds a lot more weight than "really nasty."

I still can't fathom why he never used the bomb as a bargaining chip against the dangerous girl who cares for the safety of others or the whole slew of armed security when he's just one man. Hell, for that matter I still can't fathom why he didn't put together a team if this science outpost has THAT much security.

This guy reminds me of an assassin introduced in an animated comic that ran a few years ago called "Kid Radd." The assassin sucks at taking out the main character because he was sought at a huge discount and the ones hiring him pocketed the extra money that would have gone toward the hire of a BETTER assassin. His inept nature had everything to do with the story and gave the hero an opportunity to grow in facing him. Not only that but they established that he had a bad reputation as an assassin because his services were so cheap.

This guy is apparently supposed to be a bounty hunter with a reputation at being effective, right? If so, Mookie really REALLY needs to give his actions some thought and--here's a crazy idea--have a second person go over the situation to point out any inconsistencies or weak points.